Did the Vikings and Normans invade England for the same reason?
Throughout my article I am activity the analyze the affidavit in which the Vikings and Normans invaded England; and if there affidavit were comparable. I will afresh investigate the Bayeux Carpeting and the techniques acclimated to access England. Afresh to achieve arise to a cessation atrophy the Vikings and Normans invaded England for the same/different affidavit and the acumen for my answer.
From researching lots of sources I accept accustomed that the Normans came to access England, area as the Vikings came to abduct goods. On the credible it would arise that the Normans invaded for political affidavit admitting the Vikings invaded for amusing reasons. William Duke of Normandy anticipation he was the applicable beneficiary to the head of England, afterwards Baron Edward died; however, Harold Earl of Wessex became Baron to William’s agitation and this advance to the aggression of the Norman army in 1066, other-wise accepted as the Action of Hastings, which brought an end to Anglo-Saxon England.
On the other-hand, the Vikings invaded for acreage and bigger affection of life, their citizenry was albino hilly, and not as abundant as Britain. About there was added to it than aloof to own added and acreage and acquire added money and not apathy accepting that atonement authority cachet that comes with actuality wealthy. Denmark, Norway and Sweden, (we now accredit to these areas as Scandinavia) was additionally over busy which added to the burden of adaptation as aliment became alarm and acreage to acreage became alike added rare, Britain became actual ambrosial to Vikings whom artlessly capital a bigger lifestyle, and would do annihilation to animate the fantasy affairs of the British.
Social and political affidavit are a simplified view, and throughout my article I am activity to attending added into the political, amusing and bread-and-butter altitude of this era. The Vikings and Normans additionally invaded for agnate reasons.
In the aboriginal 10th century, afore the Norman aggression the Vikings additionally invaded for political reasons. This aggression amorphous aback Baron Svien’s (Viking baron of Denmark) sister was murdered for actuality alfresco the Dane law, her afterlife sparked abundant avengement for the Baron of Denmark. Afterward his sister’s afterlife Baron Svien invaded Britain with intensions of demography over. Although he took ascendancy of some areas he died in 1014. The afterward year Cnut, Svein’s son, alternate with an alike greater aegis force, and because Baron Edmund had died Cnut became baron of all England.
The Normans aggression was for amusing reasons, which was additionally quiet agnate to the Vikings, the two army’s capital aspirations were to accept land, and animate a bigger affection of life, and both would do this by any agency necessary, but in a action of two there is alone one conqueror. In this case the Normans were the winners. This can be accurate from attractive at abounding altered sources.” Baron Harold was killed’’– The D adaptation of the Anglo-Saxon chronicle.”But the Normans, aback wheeling their horses, amidst them and cut bottomward their pursuers so that not one was larboard alive.Twice was this tactic active with the greatest success” – William of Poitiers
After the invasion, William accustomed the assumption that “all acreage belongs to the king” William awkward this assumption for every alone word. Numerous amounts of Norman archbishops’, earls, bishops, abbots and nobles were accustomed acreage in barter for soldiers aback appropriate for battle, acreage for a abeyant activity that seems beneath than a fair exchange. Norman soldiers were additionally accustomed acreage in which they too busy out to peasants. About this arrangement seemed added economical (to accretion wealth) rather than social.
William and his ancestors fabricated a cogent bulk of money from this system, he done this by authoritative abiding everybody paid taxes, “He beatific his men all over England….and has them acquisition out…what or how abundant everybody had who was application acreage in England in or beasts and how abundant money it was worth”– Domesday as arise in The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Unquestionably it would assume that abundance was a huge affective factor.
However it was additionally fabricated credible that money was a affective agency for the Vikings too. Demography into application that the Vikings were traders and raiders and had been raiding England for years afore they invaded, it is accessible that they knew that England was not able-bodied safeguarded and had acceptable resources. They acclimated this disadvantage to their advantage; Vikings were accomplished traders and congenital up a acceptable trading industry afterwards adjustment in England. Therefore, although we apperceive they bare land, due to their citizenry actuality over-populated and infertile, they best acceptable accept England, as against to about else, for bread-and-butter (wealth) reasons
In cessation one capital aberration in their affidavit for advancing England is that the Normans explaination for their invastion was justified on religious grounds, admitting the Vikings had no such motivations for advancing England. It accordingly would arise afterwards investigating added carefully at the politics, social, bread-and-butter and religious altitude that the Vikings and Normans had added in accepted for advancing England than it aboriginal appears.
The Bayeux carpeting is a actual arguable topic, as it is the alone allotment of concrete affirmation we accept to await on apropos aback to the action of Hastings, but did the action of hasting anytime booty place, did the Normans anytime access England, could it aloof be a myth?
After absolute analysis apropos the carpeting you apprentice that not alone is the way in which Harold died questionable, the being who commissioned the carpeting is too. The alone who commissioned the Carpeting was Bishop Dodo, who was the bisected brother of William the Conqueror. Aback this actuality was fabricated credible the tapestry’s actuality became alike added debatable.
The altercation surrounding the tapestry’s agency the adornment can never be acclimated as fact, because we do not apperceive if it is actuality or fiction. It’s a allotment of history that one has to accept there own angle on, although we do tend to use the carpeting as affirmation of the action of Hastings.
There are three sections to the tapestry, area one of Bayeux carpeting scenes authenticate the contest arch to the Norman aggression and the Action of Hastings The additional area of Bayeux carpeting scenes appearance the affairs and the Norman Aggression fleet. The third area of Bayeux carpeting scenes illustrates the contest of the Action of Hastings. Normans are apparent killing Baron Harold who is aboriginal attempt with an arrow in his eye and afresh afraid to afterlife by Norman armed forces, about added assay of the adornment shows abounding accessible means in which Harold could accept died. About abounding historians accept to accept that Harold was attempt in his eye with an arrow
We accept apparent from our assay of the Bayeux Carpeting how ambiguous sources can be. History is generally like this. What affirmation of the accomplished we have, has survived by adventitious or because it is admired and kept. Now and afresh historians artlessly don’t accept abundant abundant affirmation to be assertive about what happened, and charge abatement aback on accomplished estimation. Alike so, to be a acceptable historian, whatever annual they arise up with charge fit with what affirmation there is, which the Bayeux Carpeting is. About ambiguous the Carpeting may be it is generally acclimated to explain the action of Hastings
Order a unique copy of this paper